Introduction

Understanding the Relationship Between Anderson Carvalho, ACDC and Wij Zijn Dox DOX

 

In recent public statements, DOX has expressed pride in the care and support it says it has provided to Anderson Carvalho and has stated that it does not recognise the claims brought by Anderson Carvalho Dance & Choreography ("ACDC").

​

We respect DOX's right to present its position. The legal dispute between the parties is currently before the Dutch courts, and those legal issues will ultimately be determined by the Court.

​

The purpose of this page is therefore not to litigate the case in public.

Rather, it is to explain the historical development of the relationship between Anderson Carvalho, ACDC and DOX through a chronological account of the relevant events.

​

Because legal proceedings are currently ongoing, ACDC is presently unable to publish many of the contemporaneous documents that underpin this chronology. Those documents form part of the court record. As soon as the procedural rules permit, ACDC intends to publish the underlying agreements, correspondence, reports, protocols and other contemporaneous documents, together with their drafting history where relevant.

​

Until then, this page summarises the chronology upon which ACDC bases its position.

​

2017 – May 2018: Anderson's period at DOX

​

Anderson Carvalho worked with DOX for a relatively short period between 2017 and May 2018.

​

At the time, Anderson was already an accomplished contemporary dancer with a strong classical ballet background.

​

Shortly before joining DOX he applied for admission to the Codarts Dance Academy. His application was declined because his technical level exceeded the exit level of the undergraduate programme.

​

During his period at DOX Anderson concluded that DOX was not the artistic environment in which he wished to develop his long-term career.

​

DOX's primary mission is the development of young performers, with a strong emphasis on urban dance and community participation.

​

Anderson's ambitions lay elsewhere: creating contemporary dance on an international stage.

​

Within approximately one year Anderson voluntarily left DOX.

​

The artistic differences can still be seen in publicly available recordings of:

​

• Anderson's Codarts audition;

• Anderson's Codarts graduation performance;

• DOX's production Styx.

​

(See Videos Below)

​

Following his departure in May 2018, Anderson did not return to work with DOX for more than five years.

​

2018 – 2023: Independent artistic development

​

Following his departure from DOX, and after his Master's graduation Anderson independently established Anderson Carvalho Dance & Choreography (ACDC).

​

During the following years he independently:

​

• established ACDC;

• completed his Master's degree in Choreography through Codarts and Fontys;

• developed his own choreographic language;

• established Dance Intersect in Cape Town;

• organised the pilot edition of Dance Intersect in 2022;

• organised the first full Dance Intersect festival in 2023;

• developed international collaborations, including projects in Rwanda.

​

These developments all occurred before Anderson renewed contact with DOX.

​

According to ACDC, neither DOX nor Hildegard Draaijer was involved in the conception, artistic development, financing or organisation of these activities.

​

This five-year period forms, in ACDC's view, the foundation of Anderson's independent artistic career.

​

September 2023: First contact with Hildegard Draaijer

​

Only after Dance Intersect 2023 had already taken place did Anderson and ACDC first meet Hildegard Draaijer.

​

At that time Hildegard was not working at DOX.

​

She was approached because of her extensive experience within the Dutch cultural sector and was invited to consider joining the board of ACDC in her personal capacity.

By then:

​

• Dance Intersect 2023 had already taken place;

• ACDC had already been established;

• Anderson had completed his Master's degree;

• international collaborations had already been developed.

​

Despite this chronology, DOX later described itself in its 2023 Annual Report as co-producer of Dance Intersect 2023.

​

Late 2023: A limited commissioned assignment

​

Shortly after Hildegard informed ACDC that she would return to DOX, discussions took place concerning possible conflicts of interest.

​

According to ACDC, Hildegard assured the organisation that her renewed employment at DOX would not interfere with ACDC's independent development.

​

Despite Anderson's reluctance to become involved with DOX again, Hildegard encouraged him to accept a small commissioned assignment.

​

The commission was valued at approximately €3,400 excluding VAT.

​

It involved creating work with several DOX dancers in connection with a violin competition.

​

The written agreement contains no reference to:

​

• Dance Intersect;

• ACDC;

• co-production;

• an artistic residency for Dance Intersect;

• future editions of Dance Intersect;

• future rights relating to Dance Intersect.

​

It was a standalone professional commission.

​

According to ACDC, this assignment nevertheless later became one of the elements relied upon by DOX in support of its description of itself as co-producer of Dance Intersect 2023 and 2024.

​

Funding discussions

​

During this same period Hildegard discussed possible Dutch funding opportunities with ACDC.

​

Some funding schemes required cooperation with an established Dutch cultural institution.

​

For that reason a draft letter expressing support for a possible future collaboration between DOX and ACDC was prepared.

​

No formal long-term collaboration agreement was concluded.

​

Throughout this period ACDC states that it was repeatedly informed that Dutch funding for activities in South Africa and Rwanda was effectively unavailable.

​

This position was communicated on multiple occasions and contemporaneous voice recordings documenting those conversations have already been made public.

​

Consequently:

​

• no jointly funded international programme commenced;

• no structural collaboration between DOX and ACDC came into existence;

• ACDC continued organising and financing Dance Intersect independently.

​

Dance Intersect 2024

​

Dance Intersect 2024 was organised by ACDC.

​

According to ACDC:

​

• DOX did not organise the festival;

• DOX did not finance the festival;

• DOX did not produce the festival.

​

Hildegard attended Dance Intersect 2024 but did not participate in its production or financing.

​

The Utrecht proposal

​

Following Dance Intersect 2024, Hildegard proposed a collaboration in Utrecht.

​

The proposal envisaged bringing South African and Dutch dancers together in a new production.

​

ACDC was informed that:

​

• the performance would take place in Stadsschouwburg Utrecht;

• DOX would organise accommodation;

• DOX would cover production costs;

• the production would subsequently continue to Rwanda before further development in South Africa.

• ​

Relying on those representations, ACDC committed itself to bringing international dancers to the Netherlands.

​

Subsequently, the proposal changed significantly.

​

Funding became ACDC's responsibility.

​

After months of unsuccessful funding applications, DOX ultimately contributed €15,000 towards the production.

​

The promised presentation in Stadsschouwburg Utrecht did not take place, even though DOX itself still presented its own work in the Stadsschouwburg on the original planned date.

​

Instead the production was presented in Theater Kikker. DOX did not invest in marketing, no press was invited, and no video recording was arranged.

​

According to ACDC, this materially reduced the visibility of the project for the participating international artists and negatively affected ACDC's credibility within its international network.

​

March 2025: Defining DOX's role

​

During preparations for the Utrecht collaboration, ACDC expressly asked DOX to define its role.

​

Among the questions asked were:

​

• What exactly is DOX's role?

• Is DOX co-producer of Dance Intersect Cape Town?

• What responsibilities does DOX assume?

• What exactly are the parties collaborating on?

​

One week later DOX prepared a written co-production agreement.

​

The written co-production agreement

​

The agreement answered the questions ACDC had raised.

​

Importantly, it established a co-production of one specific production:

​

Fragmented Landscape in Utrecht.

​

The agreement defined DOX's contribution in detail, including:

​

• €15,000 funding;

• specified dancers;

• composer;

• Dutch interns;

• rehearsal facilities;

• Theater Kikker;

• technical support;

• marketing support;

• artistic coaching.

​

The agreement also expressly provided that it would terminate on 3 July 2025.

​

It contains no provision extending the co-production beyond Utrecht and makes no reference to future editions of Dance Intersect, Cape Town or Rwanda.

​

Following the Utrecht performances ACDC continued financing and producing its own activities independently.

​

The funding question

​

During these legal proceedings a further aspect of the relationship has become apparent.

​

While ACDC states that it was repeatedly informed that Dutch funding for its work in South Africa and Rwanda was effectively unavailable, the defence statements filed by DOX and Hildegard Draaijer describe several substantial funding applications in which Anderson Carvalho, ACDC, Dance Intersect and ACDC's international activities were included as part of DOX's international programme.

​

Those defence statements further indicate that DOX subsequently received substantial public funding through various Dutch funding programmes.

​

ACDC does not suggest that those grants were awarded exclusively for Anderson Carvalho or Dance Intersect.

​

Rather, the chronology raises a number of questions that ACDC believes deserve clarification:

​

• Why was ACDC repeatedly informed that funding for its international activities was effectively unavailable?

• What role did Anderson Carvalho, ACDC and Dance Intersect play within DOX's funding applications?

• How was the relationship between DOX and ACDC presented to public funders?

• To what extent did Anderson's work, Dance Intersect and ACDC's international network contribute to those applications?

• What benefit, if any, was intended for the artists, productions and international collaborations described in those applications?

​

These questions form part of the ongoing court proceedings and cannot presently be answered by publishing the underlying documents.

​

ACDC intends to make those contemporaneous materials available as soon as the legal process permits.

​

The documentary record

​

The chronology presented above is based upon contemporaneous agreements, correspondence, reports, protocols and other documents created during the relationship between the parties.

​

A number of those documents now relied upon in these proceedings have a drafting history involving multiple contributors and multiple revisions.

​

Several documents relied on by DOX have been originally drafted by ACDC board members (excluding Hildegard Draaijer) and did not include any reference to DOX. Only after these documents were finalized by Hildegard Draaijer and DOX subsidy writer Wessel Padberg were references to DOX included that now support DOX narrative.

​

Because those documents currently form part of the court proceedings, ACDC cannot publish them at this stage.

​

When the legal process permits, ACDC intends to publish, where appropriate:

​

• the original drafts;

• the contemporaneous correspondence relating to those drafts;

• subsequent revisions;

• and the final versions.

​

The purpose of doing so is not to invite readers to accept ACDC's interpretation.

​

It is to allow readers to understand the complete documentary history and to assess the chronology on the basis of the contemporaneous record.

​

The chronology in context

​

Viewed chronologically, the relationship between Anderson Carvalho, ACDC and DOX appears to consist of several distinct phases:

​

• a relatively short period of employment between 2017 and 2018;

• more than five years of independent artistic development;

• renewed contact with Hildegard Draaijer in late 2023;

• a limited commissioned assignment;

• discussions concerning possible future collaboration;

• a single written co-production agreement relating to Fragmented Landscape in Utrecht;

• and subsequent legal proceedings concerning how that relationship has been characterised.

​

The chronology therefore raises four questions that, in ACDC's view, lie at the heart of the dispute:

​

1. Artistic agency — To what extent did Anderson independently develop his artistic career following his departure from DOX in 2018?

2. Co-production — Do the documented collaborations justify describing DOX as co-producer of Dance Intersect 2023, 2024 and from 2025 to 2028?

3. Funding — Was it appropriate for ACDC to be repeatedly informed that funding for its international activities was effectively unavailable while Anderson Carvalho, ACDC, Dance Intersect and ACDC's international collaborations were simultaneously incorporated into DOX's own funding applications and substantial funding has been awarded for its internationalization program?

4. Documentary history — Should the relationship be understood solely through the final versions of documents now relied upon in these proceedings, or also through their contemporaneous drafting history when that becomes available?

​

Conclusion

​

This chronology is not intended to deny that Anderson Carvalho and DOX worked together.

​

They did.

​

Nor does it deny that ACDC and DOX collaborated on specific projects.

​

They did.

​

Rather, this chronology seeks to place those interactions within their proper historical context.

​

According to ACDC, Anderson voluntarily left DOX in May 2018 and subsequently spent more than five years independently developing his artistic practice, completing his Master's degree, establishing ACDC, creating Dance Intersect and building an international network before entering into a number of specific collaborations with DOX.

​

The questions concerning co-production, funding and documentary interpretation all arise from that chronology.

​

When the ongoing legal proceedings permit, ACDC intends to publish the contemporaneous documentary record on which this chronology is based, enabling readers to examine the underlying evidence for themselves and to draw their own conclusions.